FG% for a unquestionable number one option should hold less weight than it does. These certain individuals are counted on to take the last second shots, the tough ones, with the clock running down. They are the ones the defense keys on to stop at all times. You know? FG% for a undisputed #1 option is a reflection on his teammates and what they bring to the table offensivly. Do they space the floor, can they be counted on to make shots? What about someone else who can create and make shots? Those all factor in the FG% for the #1 option in my opinion.

However, FG% for a role player is far more important. A role player has to be an efficent one of the offensive end. After all they are getting the wide open shots, the kickouts, etc. Those type of set-shots.

Another thing, if one player was ice-cold for the first three quarters and your team is up 10 going into the fourth, name 3 players who you DON'T wanna be facing in that situation.

Makes Jordan's career 51% shooting before Washington all the more amazing, since he had to take 2-4 of those end-of-shotclock/game clock bail-out shots every game for his entire career.

I disagree with the premise of this thread. Primary options who score efficiently are god-sends, because that filters down to the rest of the team and leaves less room for bitterness to develop over anyone "chucking." If AI (for example) was hitting 48% of his shots all those years in Philly, perhaps his domination of the ball wouldn't have rubbed certain of his teammates the wrong way, since he would have been able to get his numbers while using fewer possessions.

I think efficiency is important for everyone, #1 options and role players alike. You need to keep things in perspective, obviously -- primary scorers are subjected to pressures that second-stringers just aren't -- but it still carries weight imo.

Agreed and let's not forget that it's those #1 players taking the circus shots when the clock is running out, not the role-players.

Well, not always... but for the most part when the offense has nothing and the clock is down under 7 seconds the #1 option is forced to create a shot and most times it's a very difficult, someone right in your face type that has a very low percentage of going in.

If AI (for example) was hitting 48% of his shots all those years in Philly

I made this thread to point out these type of circumstances that players like Iverson see themselves in.

Let's go back to that team for a second. Obviously they had very, very good role players... but that was on the defensive side of the ball. (I'm gonna be talking about the team that made it to the finals)

They had no reliable second option. Mackie was nice off the bench but nothing special... hit shots when Iverson created something for him. However to start the game Iverson had:

Mutombo
Hill
Lynch
Snow

You cannot tell me playing with those type of players you can fault a player, a number one scoring option, to shoot close to or under 40 percent. The defense can key on someone too much and when Iverson does find someone open, they usually aren't making the shots at a consistent rate... leaving the defense with the oppurtunity to key on him even moreso than usual without paying the price.

When Iverson finally shot 45 percent, or whatever it was back a year or two he had guys that were capable of making shots on offense. It makes a difference. Nobody can argue otherwise.

That's why I feel like FG% for a #1 to a major extent is a reflection upon your teammates and their abilitys on the offensive side of the ball.

Role players don't need to be shooting efficiently to be role players, they could play their role on the defensive end, or be rebounders (example, yep you guessed it, Chuck Hayes). An offensive role player could be a great passer, or someone who sets screens well, etc.

I disagree with the premise of this thread. Primary options who score efficiently are god-sends, because that filters down to the rest of the team and leaves less room for bitterness to develop over anyone "chucking." If AI (for example) was hitting 48% of his shots all those years in Philly, perhaps his domination of the ball wouldn't have rubbed certain of his teammates the wrong way, since he would have been able to get his numbers while using fewer possessions.

I think #1 options will usually have lower Fg% than role players... But the role players have to be put in roles that they can produce...

With the 6ers, AI had alot of responsibility to score the ball and set up teammates, but his teammates were soo limited in various capacities that it would get very hard to be able to set up everyone in the ONE(and sometimes only 1) spot on the floor that they can hit a shot from... On Offense, Eric Snow was useless outside of about 10 feet, Hill was useless outside of 3 feet and Lynch was useless outside of 5. They were incredble defenders who stayed in front of their guys and Mutombo/Ratliff would handle the shot blocking...But on offense, it was a very limited group.. Our wins were all ugly or not at all..

AI took alot of tough shots, but AI also took alot of dumb shots....He'd pull up for 3 pointers with 12, 13 seconds still on the clock and nobody in position to rebound... He take on too much responsibility instead of staying methodical and continuing to work the formula

The % is overated because even though people forget, scoring is just one aspect of bball

i dont agree. star players arent always taking bail-out shots for their team, that's just something you made up. If the shot-clock is running down, whoever has the ball is going to shoot it. It's not like the other players seek out the star player everytime the shot-clock is running down.

Furthermore, Half-court buzzer beating shots to end a quarter are something of yesterday. None of the stars in todays league EVER shoot those shots, unless it's a potential game-winning situation. Some role-players dont even take those shots. No one wants to hurt their FG% in a league where stats are so highly valued.

FG% is one of the most important stats in basketball. To undermine for silly reasons like 'they take circus shots when time is running out' is just flat-out wrong, because they don't. I'll take a 20-25 ppg scorer who shoots 50% over a 30-35 ppg scorer who shoots 40%.

the thread starter is right, you cannot use FG% when comparing #1 options to role players, or even 2nd/3rd options. If you compare Kobe to Rip Hamilton for instance, Rip obviously has a better FG%, but that's because he gets easier shots because he isn't the primary option on the team, defense cannot concentrate on him. Also he has a premier PG on his team. So it's only logical that someone like Kobe (or AI, TMac in Orlando etc), who is forced to create for himself because of worse teammates will shoot a lower percentage.

You can only use FG% as a decisive factor if two players are in similar situations, when comparing the likes of Wade, Bron, Kobe, AI, TMac to each other. Or Rip to Josh or something.